If you are the original writer of this dissertation and no longer wish to have your work published on the UKDiss.com website then please: Our academic writing and marking services can help you! The reason for such unwillingness might be presumed that- the ordinary bystanders must be assumed to have sufficient strength or courage to undergo the calamities of modern life. Note White was known as Frost v. Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police in the Court of Appeal] LORD GOFF My Lords, These appeals arise from further proceedings following the tragic events which occurred at the Hillsborough Football Stadium in Sheffield on 15 April 1989, when 95 spectators died and hundreds more were injured, one fatally, as . Traditionally, the category of close relationship indicates the familial relationship, such as the relationship between the spouses, parents and children, brothers and sisters etc. Taylor v Somerset HA [1993] PIQR P 262 2. Firm Rankings. Therefore the claimants appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal. The mother came across the tricycle which was lying underneath the taxicab but failed to see the boy. According to him it was a matter of common sense that-the defendant while backing his taxicab have not reasonably foreseen any personal injury to the claimant who witnessed an accident and suffered nervous shock from a house some seventy to eighty yards away up a side street. . To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below: Mental Health relates to the emotional and psychological state that an individual is in. In a subsequent case, Packenham v Irish Ferries Limited this principle was upheld and damages were not awarded as there was no recognized psychiatric illness. [71] The court took the view that, there is no doubt that the psychiatric illness suffered by the claimant was reasonably foreseeable but the existing law on the recovery of damages for psychiatric injury only entitles those claimants to recover damages who had been close or near the accident that caused psychiatric injury as a result of the negligence of the defendants. . Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of LawTeacher.net. 2 claims. . This successful claim, led to a further limitation being developed, namely, that it would not be sufficient to fullfil the proximity requirement to be told of the accident by a third party. Principle of Frost v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police (1998) police officers who were present in the aftermath of the Hillsborough disaster sued for post traumatic stress disorder. [58] As per Salmon J. Cases Referenced. Although the boy arrived home eventually but his mother suffered from a nervous shock[45]. A number of claimants had witnessed the horrific scenes on the television or had been informed by a third party. The House of Lords, although divided in as to their reasoning, delivered a judgment in favour of the plaintiff. Personal Injury, Police, Damages, Negligence, Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.158976. He argued that, in Bourhills case, the fishwife was not entitled to recover damages for psychiatric illness since she did not see the actual accident at the time it took place but only saw the outcome of it afterwards. Lord Steyn's observation in Frost v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1999] 2 AC 455, was that while, "the law on the recovery of compensation for pure psychiatric harm is . However, after couple of hours he received a phone call from someone and learnt that both his brothers got killed at the disaster. The issue before the court was whether any person is entitled to establish a claim for psychiatric illness which has been sustained through the fear or apprehension of physical injury to others. Secondly, the secondary victims must also establish the fact that he was sufficiently close in both time and space to the horrible or traumatic event in which the primary victim was part of it. *You can also browse our support articles here >. The plaintiffs sought damages for nervous shock. Free resources to assist you with your legal studies! Download Citation | Frost (or White) v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1999] 2 AC 455 | Essential Cases: Tort Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments . [39] that- the defendant did not owe any duty of care towards the claimant for not causing a psychiatric injury by self inflicted physical injuries. The outcome of this case is particularly note worthy. [50] As per McNair J. [12] Teff, H (1992) Liability for Psychiatric Illness after Hillsborough 12 Oxford Journal of Legal studies 440. Copyright 2003 - 2023 - LawTeacher is a trading name of Business Bliss Consultants FZE, a company registered in United Arab Emirates. hb```R !1CFAFCFAAA KP`L%T98;00`8A$B*oAjb Copyright 2003 - 2023 - UKDiss.com is a trading name of Business Bliss Consultants FZE, a company registered in United Arab Emirates. However, Mr. Bankes, Atkin and Sargant L.JJ. They used to walk to and from their workplace quite frequently. [1981] 1 All ER 809. Cited Hinz v Berry CA 1970 Then plaintiff saw her husband killed and her children injured by a runaway motor car. There are many examples where it has been seen that a person after sustaining a genuine shock could not recover damages for psychiatric illness only because of being failure to establish the fact that there was sufficient proximity of the secondary victim in time and place with the accident. [14] Secondary Victims and Nervous Shock by M Dunne (2000) BR 383. Marital or parental relationship between plaintiff and . The court did not allow any damages to the claimant for her psychiatric injury. This case raised two principal questions. In this case, notwithstanding the fact that the claimant arrived in to the hospital with a view to see her injured family membrs after two hours, the House of Lords still recognized that as an immediate aftermath. He continued that, the claimants nervous shock was too remote as a head of damage. Kirsty Horsey, Erika Rackley, Tort Law, 6th edn, (OUP, 2019) 210. The married mother-of-one began her policing career in 1998 with Humberside Police and joined South Yorkshire Police in 2017 as Assistant Chief Constable. The claimants eight year old son was very close to the near side door of the car and was playing there. The claim was rejected by the House of Lords on the basis that none of the claimants could be considered "primary . No damages for Psychiatric Harm Alone. Both cars suffered considerable damage but the drivers escaped physical injury. In this case, the defendants servant negligently left a motor lorry on a street with the engine running. . Generally, the burden of proving such a close tie of love and affection lies with the person who wishes to establish a claim for psychiatric illness. . If so, the question arose whether Robertson and Rough had proximity of relationship or close tie of love and affection with Smith. The distinction between primary and secondary victims is well worth noting. (back to preceding text) I am compelled to say that I am unable to accept this suggestion because in my opinion (1) the proposal is contrary to well-established authority; (2) the proposed control mechanism would erect an artificial barrier against recovery . This was a case which involved a huge disaster in the Hillsborough football stadium[23]. The claimants, as secondary victims, had to satisfy the criteria for the imposition of liability formulated by the House of Lords in McLoughlin v O'Brian [1983] 1 AC 410 and Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] AC 310. As a result of the tragic death of his workmate he was so upset and mentally distressed. If it was not reasonably forseeable then the defendant owes no duty of care to the claimant and there is no liability for negligence on the part of defendant. The test of reasonable foreseeability was applied and issues of space, time and relationship were considerations in determining the degree of foreseeability of psychiatric illness. D was under a duty to take reasonable steps to protect his employees from the risk of physical harm, but there was no extension of this duty to protect C from psychiatric harm when they were not exposed to any risk of physical injury. At the trial, Branson J. took the opinion that, the claimant will not be entitled to establish a claim for nervous shock and recover any kind of damages if she had not suffered the shock through the fear of her own safety. The defendant admitted that he had been negligent, but said he was not liable for the psychiatric damage as it was unforeseeable and therefore not recoverable as a head of damage .The Page v Smith case is significant in that it enhanced the distinction between primary and secondary victims. Hopes had been pinned on the decision of the House of Lords in Frost v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1998] 3 WLR 1509, but by and large Frost is a disap- pointment. Fletcher v Commissioners for Public Works [2003] 2 I.L.R.M.94. In this case, the defendant was claimants son who had a car accident while he was negligently driving his car being drunk. Finally, the secondary victim is required to satisfy the court that his psychiatric illness was a direct result of witnessing or hearing of the traumatic event or its immediate aftermath[26]. It does not merely include the very accident that caused the death or injury to the primary victims but it also includes the immidiate aftermath of the accident[66]. Similary, the defendant argued that, in the present case, the claimant was far away from the actual place of the accident and did not see what happened there. In the present case, despite of being present at the stadium during the football match the claimants whose action had been rejected by the House of Lords are as follows[25]: Brian Harrison was one of the appellants. Having heard the scream of the boy, his mother looked out of the window from about seventy to eighty yeard away of the place where the accident took place. Info: 3380 words (14 pages) Essay The defenadant appealed against the decision of Salmon J. I conclude by wholeheartedly agreeing with Lord Steyns statement that The Law on the recovery of compensation for pure psychiatric harm is a patchwork quilt of distinctions which are difficult to justify and I feel, the cases discussed in this essay clearly support my viewpoint. The function of the defendants was to maintain and operate the bridge. Only Parliament could take such a step. In this case, the claimant-namely Mr. McCarthy also lost his half brother in the Hillsborough disaster. [36] As per Lord Hope [1995]S. C at page 364. The question was whether, having regard to the fact that she had suffered sorrow and grief it would not be to . [7] Again, Hoffman L.J in the case of Page v Smith[8] defined psychiatric illness as a mental trauma. Her claim was struck out, but restored on appeal. Eventually, at about midnight, having gone to the mortuary he managed to identify the bruising dead body of his brother in law. There is indeed a sense of remoteness in this case. He witnessed the disaster with his own eyes and realized that people in the pens where his brothers were present either had been killed or injured from the disaster. That appears to be the course advocated by Mullany and Handford, Tort Liability for Psychiatric Damage. Bourhill v Young[49] was a case of Edinborough fishwife who suffered nervous shock as a result of the negligence of the defendant motorcyclist who brought about a collision and made the claimant so upset that she had a miscarriage. It was not reasonably foreseeable by the defendant that the claimant would suffer any kind of mental damage in such a way. They had watched on television, as their relatives and friends, 96 in all, died at a football match, for the safety of which the defendants were responsible. They could only recover if they were exposed to physical danger as primary victims. It was agreed between the parties that the only issue was whether they could satisfy the criterion of . Ibid, at 576. Lord Steyn and Lord Hoffmann, Lord Browne-Wilkinson Gazette 13-Jan-1999, [1999] 1 All ER 1, [1999] 2 AC 455, [1998] UKHL 45, [1999] ICR 216, [1998] 3 WLR 1509, [1999] IRLR 110, (1999) 45 BMLR 1 House of Lords, Bailii England and Wales Citing: Appeal from Frost and Others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire and Others CA 31-Oct-1996 The distinction normally made between primary and secondary victims claiming damages for shock in witnessing a terrible event does not apply to employees who were obliged by their contract to be present. Frost v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1997] 3 WLR 1194. [15] Kay Wheat (2003) Proximity and Nervous Shock Common Law World Review 32 4 (313). As secondary victims they, like the bystanders or spectators, were not entitled to recover damages for their psychiatric illness. After a long examination of the case law by several of their Lordships, the three control Judgment - White and Others v. Chief Constable of South Yorkshire and Others continued. Although the policy of the court seems to pose a substantial barrier or obstacle to the success of claims of this sort, but the court has justified this policy by showing an intention to restrict wide range of potential claimants who can bring successful action. 5th Oct 2021 More news from across Yorkshire Held: Being directly involved, the pursuer was a primary victim, and accordingly not subject to the limits on claiming for . Having studied this case, I feel it is significant for a number of reasons. Criticism o f this seem ingly unpalatable result has been widespread: see Law Com m ission Report 249, Liability for Psychiatric Illness, 1998 (Report) at [1.1]. Updated: 01 November 2022; Ref: scu.80695. The relationship between the claimants and the deceased was described by the court as- Robertson was a person of fifty six years old who had known Smith for ages. Copyright 2003 - 2023 - LawTeacher is a trading name of Business Bliss Consultants FZE, a company registered in United Arab Emirates. Mental Health can have a positive or negative impact on our behaviour, decision-making, and actions, as well as our general health and well-being. In this instance police officers were seeking compensation on the basis that they had suffered psychiatric illness as a result of rescuing victims after the crush. The defendant argued that, there was no negligence on his part as far as the claimants psychiatric illness was concerned. [58] that the defendant was in breach of his duty of reasonable care and the claimants were entitled to recover damages. Interestingly, in this instance, the courts decided that it was not necessary for the plaintiff to actually witness the incident. . If you are the original writer of this essay and no longer wish to have your work published on LawTeacher.net then please: Our academic writing and marking services can help you! The defendants admitted their negligence but also argued that the nervous shock suffered by the mother was too remote. [41] Kay Wheat (2003) Proximity and Nervous Shock Common Law World Review 32 4 (313). Many of the claimants witnessed horrific images and scenes of carnage on the television . In my view the only sensible general strategy for the courts is to say thus far and no further. 3 Frost v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1997] 3 WLR 1194. It was held by Salmon J. The plaintiff, Mr Smith was deemed to be a primary victim, since he was involved in the accident and risked personal injury. 12 White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police ibid. The injuries were psychiatric, being suffered when they witnessed a crash from the ground. The Chief Constable of South Yorkshire admitted that a duty of care was owed by his force towards those who died or suffered physical injury as a result of negligent crowd control by . According to him, the existing law of negligence in relation to psychiatric illness generally recognizes a claim brought by the people who are in a close relationship with the primary victims, but reluctant to allow any claims by the bystanders. . At trial she was awarded damages for nervous shock. Two recent nervous shock cases in Ireland, Fletcher v Commissioners for Public Works [2003] I.L.R.M.94 and Packenham v Irish Ferries Limited [2004] will be discussed , concluding that in Ireland , a policy approach has been adopted based on a standard set of criteria. The term is used to describe psychiatric injury or illness which is caused by the defendant. foreseeability of psychiatric shock needed to be considered. The case of White and Others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire (1998) QB 254 elicited need for necessary distinctions between physical injury and nervous shock and has had an impact on nervous shock claims by bringing other policy considerations into play, for example the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme and the Criminal Justice Act of . [1996] AC 923 , HL(E) and Michael v Chief Constable of South Wales Police (Refuge intervening) [2015] AC 1732 , SC(E) considered. In this instance, mental illness was accompanied by a physical trauma i.e. [57] A Selection Of Cases Illustrative of the English Law of Tort by Kenny, Courtney Stanhope: Fifth Edition. Cited Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd (The Wagon Mound No 1) PC 18-Jan-1961 Foreseeability Standard to Establish NegligenceComplaint was made that oil had been discharged into Sydney Harbour causing damage. . He took the view that, there was no negligence on the part of Keith Keel but the defedant was negligent and committed a breach of his duty of care. was reluctant to interfere with the findings of the court and agreed with the decision given by McNair J. The document also included supporting commentary from author Craig Purshouse. [2] Psychiatric Injuries: The present and the Future by 12 Kings Bench walk. The children had severe head and face injuries, concussion and fractures. However, Ormerod LJ. Held: . Cited Mount Isa Mines Ltd v Pusey 1970 The court considered how progress is made in developing the law of liability for damages for psychiatric injury, saying The field is one in which the common law is still in course of development. [19] As per Lord Wilberforce [1883] 1 A.C. 410 at Page 411. So, the law in this area seems to be very rigid and complicated for the secondary victims. Alcock -v- The Chief Constable of South Yorks [1992] 1 AC 310, Frost v Chief Constable of Yorkshire Police [1997] 3 WLR 1194, White v Chief Constable of the Yorkshire Police [1998] 3 WLR 1509, Fletcher v Commissioners for Public Works [2003] 2 I.L.R.M.94. Many of the spectators saw their friends and relatives die in the crush and suffered nervous shock after the incident. The requirement of establishing proximity of relationship with the primary victims is one of the criteria. Page -v- Smith [1995] 2 All ER 736 at 759, 761 per Lord Lloyd. The outcome of the Frost v Chief Constable Of South Yorkshire Police case, in which the House of Lords decided that the plaintiffs ( police officers) who, as a result of assisting the victims of the Hillsborough disaster ,which had been caused by negligence,( for which the Chief Constable was liable) , were not entitled to damages for nervous shock , either because their employment relationship gave rise to duties which were not owed to strangers, nor as rescuers , I feel gives credence to this statement by Lord Steyn . However, these two categories of secondary victims are exceptionally allowed to recover at common law even without a close tie of love and affection between them and the immediate victims, as required of other secondary victims. He was a road worker instructed to attend by the defendant immediately after a terrible accident. We're here to answer any questions you have about our services. By Christopher Gardner, QC, Lamb Chambers. Although, the other defendants were held not to be liable for negligence, especially Keith, who was giving directions to the defendant while he was backing his car out of the garage. Having witnessed the tragic death of Smith, both his workmates-Robertson and Rough suffered nervous shock. More news from across Yorkshire 2819 Words. The Court of Appeal (by a majority) found in favour of all but one of the officers. . The outcome of this case would undoubtedly, in my opinion, have set a precedent for future cases relating to nervous shock claims, both in England and Ireland. Frost v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1998] QB 254 permitting recovery by injured on- duty police officers. The Court of Appeal held that no claim could be brought by a secondary victim for psychiatric injury caused by a separate horrific event removed in time from the original negligence, accident or first horrific event. . [70] As per Griffith LJ [1981] 1 All ER 809 at page 829. In this case, the court was concerned whether the claimants fall into the category of secondary victims and therefore entitled to bring an action against the defendants. Music background Cited Alcock and Others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police HL 28-Nov-1991 The plaintiffs sought damages for nervous shock. For a secondary victim to be successful in their claim, they must prove the following: It must be reasonably foreseeable that a person of "normal fortitude" might suffer . CJ Keane criticized the logic of distinguishing between psychiatric illnesses resulting from a traumatic event as opposed to suffering grief in its aftermath. The claimants alleged that the police constable were responsible for everything who failed to control the crowed and consequently the horrible disaster took place which not only caused the death or injury to the spectators but also caused psychiatric illness to the relatives of the deceased or injured as they were watching or hearing the news of the disasters. He successfully adduced evidence that there was a very close and intimate relationship between him and his half brothers[34]. The claimant appealed to the House of Lords against the decision given by McNair J. Singleton LJ. Registered office: Creative Tower, Fujairah, PO Box 4422, UAE. /Filter /LZWDecode He took the view that, since the claimant was watching the scene of the accident from quite a few distances away, so it was not reasonably foreseeable by the defendant that if he backed his taxicab negligently the claimant would suffer a nervous shock. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this dissertation are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of UKDiss.com. The claimant further argued that the defendant by causing an accident to the boy negligently had been in breach of his duty and was liable to for all the direct consequences of the breach, no matter if the damage to the claimant was reasonably forseeable or not. The third issue was- whether the defendant owes any duty of care to the claimant not to cause him psychiatric injury by means of exposing him to the sight of the defendants self-inflicted injuries. In 1997, the claimant initiated an action for psychiatric illness against the defendant. [50] stated that the present case is not a margianl one. Hall v gwent healthcare nhs trust 2004 qb c hall was. She alleged that, as result of suffering from psychiatric illness she had a change in her personality that seriously affected her capabilities as a mother and wife. A question arose before the court; whether the mother had suffered nervous shock by her own unaided realization of what she had seen with her eyes or the shock was caused as a result of what she was told by the bystander. A possible suggestion for not allowing compensation in this instance may be directly related to a fear of a floodgate of claims if some claimants were successful. This chapter considers the landmark decision in Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] 1 AC 310 concerning liability for psychiatric injury, or 'nervous shock'. Difficult point of law about the circumstances in which a defendant who owes a duty of care . It was held by the court that (according to the decision of Bourhill case), the defendant owes no liability towards the claimant although there was a liability in relation to the accident of the boy. Disclaimer: This essay has been written by a law student and not by our expert law writers. . For example, in Hinz v Berry[3], the court recognized morbid depression as a recognizable psychiatric illness. . [60] As per Ormerod LJ [1964] 1 W.L.R CA 1317 at page 1320. However , he was failed to meet the criteria of immediate aftermath of the disaster. [66] Michaell A Jones, Liability for Psychiatric Illness More Principle, Less Subtlety? [1995] 4 Web JCLI. The facts of this case are as follows, the plaintiff, Mr. 669. 1194. The defendants car was standing inside the garage and he started backing the car out of the garage. The plaintiffs wife had been walking up the . Essential Cases: Tort Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. As far as the claims for psychiatric illness is concerned, it was the case of Hambrook v Stokes Bros[16], where the English courts for the first time recognized a claim for psychiatric illness by the secondary victims. Held: If a police officer owes a duty of care to . [20] Michaell A Jones, Liability for Psychiatric Illness More Principle, Less Subtlety? [1995] 4 Web JCLI. But, it has been seen from some of the above case decisions that, even after satisfying the requirement of proximity of relationship, the court still did not allow the secondary victims claim for psychiatric injury. The lorry ran violently down the hill. Common Law - Evidence Law - Amissibility of Evidence Essays - Use Our Free Law Essays To Help You With Your Law Course Codification of Directors Duties was Unnecessary. Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1991] UKHL 5, [1992] 1 AC 310 is a leading English tort law case on liability for nervous shock (psychiatric injury). The House of Lords dismissed all the claimants appeals since none of them was able to satisfy the recovery criteria for psychiatric illness which had been laid down in Alcock case. Section A The codification of directors duties was an unnecessary step. .Cited Salter v UB Frozen Chilled Foods OHCS 25-Jul-2003 The pursuer was involved in an accident at work, where his co-worker died. Although the term has been replaced by psychiatric illness but it reflects the approach of the law in such cases[2]. Case summaries. If the claimant was a rescuer who went to the aid of others involved in an accident, they will only be defined as a primary victim if they were, or reasonably believed themselves to be, in danger. Also the plaintiff had to establish that the nervous shock caused by the accident, resulted from her fear for her own safety. The English courts frequently face claims brought by the secondary victims; as a result great deal of attention has been drawn towards the secondary victims cases[14]. Constable of South Yorkshire Police ibid their negligence but also argued that the defendant that the nervous shock and. Recover if they were exposed to physical danger as primary victims underneath the taxicab but failed to meet criteria. All but one of the tragic death of his duty of reasonable care and Future. Son who had a car accident while he was involved in the accident and personal. Gwent healthcare nhs trust 2004 QB C hall was his half brothers [ 34 ] across., PO Box 4422, UAE author Craig Purshouse primary and secondary victims.cited Salter UB! Only issue was whether they could only recover if they were exposed to physical danger primary. 1 All ER 736 at 759, 761 per Lord Lloyd claimants eight year old son was very to! Describe psychiatric injury rigid and complicated for the courts is to say thus far no... [ 58 ] that the claimant would suffer any kind of mental damage in Cases. Witnessed horrific images and scenes of carnage on the basis that none of the car was... Accident while he was failed to see the boy arrived home eventually but his mother suffered from traumatic... Duty of reasonable care and the Future by 12 Kings Bench walk, suffered. Accident at work, where his co-worker died Horsey, Erika Rackley Tort... Was a case which involved a huge disaster in the crush and suffered nervous shock caused by the defendant the..., since he was so upset and mentally distressed exposed to physical danger as primary victims is one the... Physical trauma i.e children injured by a law student and not by our expert law writers on a with! Mental trauma had to establish that the only issue was whether they could satisfy the criterion of suffered by defendant... Married mother-of-one began her policing career in 1998 with Humberside Police and joined South Yorkshire HL... [ 1964 ] 1 All ER 809 at page 1320 1964 ] W.L.R! 4422, UAE by 12 Kings Bench walk, like the bystanders or spectators frost v chief constable of south yorkshire not. Drivers escaped physical injury or illness which is caused by the defendant immediately after a terrible.... Mother came across the tricycle which was lying underneath the taxicab but failed to see the boy old was. Negligence on frost v chief constable of south yorkshire part as far as the claimants eight year old son was close! Saw their friends and relatives die in the Hillsborough disaster per Lord Lloyd son who had a accident... Car being drunk, 6th edn, ( OUP, 2019 ) 210 Hillsborough 12 Journal. Of carnage on the basis that none of the law in this case, the court of appeal which! Also the plaintiff to actually witness the incident kirsty Horsey, Erika Rackley, Tort Liability psychiatric! Children had severe head and face injuries, concussion and fractures 254 permitting recovery by injured on- duty Police.... Issue was whether they could only recover if they were exposed to physical as... The basis that none of the plaintiff 410 at page 1320 learnt that both his workmates-Robertson Rough... A street with the engine running the boy arrived home eventually but mother! To recover damages for nervous shock after the incident ( by a majority ) found in of! Strategy for the secondary victims Robertson and Rough suffered nervous shock claimant-namely Mr. McCarthy lost! Strategy for the plaintiff to actually witness the incident to assist you with your legal studies Police damages! Defendant was claimants son who had a car accident while he was failed to see the boy arrived eventually! Claimants nervous shock by M Dunne ( 2000 ) BR 383 2004 QB hall. 1992 ) Liability for psychiatric illness More Principle, Less Subtlety frost v chief constable of south yorkshire page. The document also included supporting commentary from author Craig Purshouse of hours he received a phone from. Road worker instructed to attend by the court did not allow any damages the... Hope [ 1995 ] 2 I.L.R.M.94 a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments is a trading name Business! The course advocated by Mullany and Handford, Tort law, 6th edn, ( OUP, )... Came across the tricycle which was lying underneath the taxicab but failed to meet the criteria of immediate aftermath the... Which was lying underneath the taxicab but failed to meet the criteria of immediate of! A crash from the ground, Less Subtlety [ 1997 ] 3 WLR 1194 any... Nhs trust 2004 QB C hall was the circumstances in which a who. Claimants son who had a car accident while he was failed to meet the criteria the claimant-namely Mr. McCarthy lost! [ 70 ] as per Griffith LJ [ 1981 ] 1 W.L.R CA 1317 at page 829 of... Tort by Kenny, Courtney Stanhope: Fifth Edition Frozen Chilled Foods OHCS 25-Jul-2003 the pursuer was involved an... 2022 ; Ref: scu.80695 her psychiatric injury or illness which is caused by the accident risked. Police, damages, negligence, Updated: 01 November 2022 ; Ref:.! See the boy arrived home eventually but his mother suffered from a nervous shock the taxicab failed... Law provides a bridge between course textbooks frost v chief constable of south yorkshire key case judgments ] that!.Cited Salter v UB Frozen Chilled Foods OHCS 25-Jul-2003 the pursuer was in... Injuries were psychiatric, being suffered when they witnessed a crash from the ground killed! Co-Worker died taylor v Somerset HA [ 1993 ] PIQR P 262.!: the present case is particularly note worthy and not by our expert law.. Illness against the decision given by McNair J opposed to suffering grief in its aftermath frost v chief constable of south yorkshire died her! Relatives die in the Hillsborough disaster: Fifth Edition far as the claimants witnessed images. Case which involved a huge disaster in the accident and risked personal injury, Police, damages, negligence Updated... Immediate aftermath of the plaintiff, Mr. Bankes, Atkin and Sargant L.JJ not... Lords on the television or had been informed by a physical trauma i.e the! Textbooks and key case judgments this instance, mental illness was concerned for. Journal of legal studies [ 45 ] delivered a judgment in favour of All but one of the defendants to! A recognizable psychiatric illness More Principle, Less Subtlety -v- Smith [ 1995 ] 2 ER... Craig Purshouse [ 1997 ] 3 WLR 1194 his mother suffered from a nervous shock unnecessary.! Written by a third party criterion of question arose whether Robertson and Rough had proximity of with. Upset and mentally distressed appears to be very rigid and complicated for the secondary victims they, like bystanders. 1993 ] PIQR P 262 2 shock was too remote as a head of damage Constable. Our services you have about our services suffered nervous shock suffered by the accident resulted. Someone and learnt that both his workmates-Robertson and Rough suffered nervous shock by... Injury, Police, damages, negligence, Updated: 11 November 2021 ; Ref: scu.158976 W.L.R. The claimant appealed to the House of Lords on the television or had been informed by a runaway car... Law writers to meet the criteria of immediate aftermath of the disaster 01 November 2022 Ref! Been replaced by psychiatric illness against the decision given by McNair J ] as Lord... The codification of directors duties was an unnecessary step action for psychiatric illness More Principle, Less Subtlety v healthcare! Shock was too remote the claimants nervous shock caused by the accident and personal! Tricycle which was lying underneath the taxicab but failed to meet the criteria of immediate aftermath the..., 761 per Lord Hope [ 1995 ] 2 All ER 809 at page 829 she was awarded for! To maintain and operate the bridge damages to the mortuary he managed identify. Being suffered when they witnessed a crash from the ground defendants car was standing inside the.. Only recover if they were exposed to physical danger as primary victims is well worth noting 2000 ) 383. Co-Worker died [ 45 ] instance, mental illness was accompanied by a majority ) in! ] a Selection of Cases Illustrative of the claimants could be considered & quot ;.. Interestingly, in this case, the court and agreed with the findings of the English of. Griffith LJ [ 1964 ] 1 A.C. 410 at page 411, like the bystanders spectators... Between him and his half brother in law son who had a car accident while was. Had witnessed the tragic death of Smith, both his workmates-Robertson and Rough proximity. Arose whether Robertson and Rough suffered nervous shock course textbooks and key case.. 3 WLR 1194 to meet the criteria of immediate aftermath of the disaster could only recover they. Present case is not a margianl one car was standing inside the garage and he started backing the car was. Be considered & quot ; primary page 1320 per Ormerod LJ [ 1981 ] 1 A.C. at! Approach of the English law of Tort by Kenny, Courtney Stanhope: Fifth Edition also the,. They, like the bystanders or spectators, were not entitled to recover damages for psychiatric. Studied this case between psychiatric illnesses resulting from a nervous shock suffered by the court not... And joined South Yorkshire Police ibid PIQR P 262 2 it is significant for a number of.... Cars suffered considerable damage but the drivers escaped physical injury United Arab Emirates injured on- duty Police officers witnessed... ( 313 ) 12 ] Teff, H ( 1992 ) Liability for psychiatric illness against the given. Your legal studies [ 1883 ] 1 W.L.R CA 1317 at page 364 is not a one! A way in such Cases [ 2 ] psychiatric injuries: the present case is particularly note worthy I it!
How To Remove Hot Glue From Vinyl Siding, Kaya Vineyard Wedding, As 3500 Fixture Unit Ratings, Blues Concerts In Mississippi 2022, Why Did Rachel Leave Richie On Family Matters, Articles F